Kerala High Court
Chandrika vs State Of Kerala on 4 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:57958
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 2016 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
CHANDRIKA
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O RAGAVAN, EYANI HOUSE, PALISSERY
THRISSUR, PIN - 680027
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.MANU RAJ
SHRI.JOBY JOSEPH (THRISSUR)
SMT.K.VINAYA
SMT.ADONIYA GIGI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
AYYANTHOLE, CIVIL STATION,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
TALUK OFFICE THRISSUR CHEMBUKAVU,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680022
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680651
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN AYYANTHOLE THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
6 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
WP(C) NO.2016 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:57958
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.JESSY S. SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.2016 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:57958
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
4.55 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.159/PT2
and 159/PT3 of Ayyanthole Village, Thrissur Taluk,
covered under Ext. P3 land tax receipt. By Ext. P4
proceedings, the petitioner's predecessor in interest
used 5 cents of land for non-agricultural purposes. The
petitioner's predecessor in interest also constructed
the building in the said property as per Ext. P5
building permit. As the respondents have erroneously
classified the property as 'paddy land' and included it
in the data bank maintained under the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008,
and the Rules framed thereunder ('Act' and 'Rules", for
brevity), the petitioner had submitted Ext.P6
application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
However, by Ext.P7 order, the authorised officer
2025:KER:57958
has summarily rejected the application without either
conducting a personal inspection of the land or relying
on satellite imagery, as specifically mandated under
Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore, the order is
devoid of any independent finding regarding the nature
and character of the land as it existed on 12.08.2008--
the date the Act came into force. The impugned order,
therefore, is arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioner is that
the subject property is not a cultivable paddy field but a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an
application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has
been rejected without proper consideration or
application of mind.
2025:KER:57958
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court -- including Muraleedharan Nair R v.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] -- that the competent
authority is obliged to assess the nature, lie and
character of the land and its suitability for paddy
cultivation as on 12.08.2008, which are the decisive
criteria to determine whether the property merits
exclusion from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P7 order reveals that the
authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory
requirements. There is no indication in the order that the
authorised officer has directly inspected the property or
called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. It is solely based on the report of the
2025:KER:57958
Agricultural Officer, that the impugned order has been
passed. The authorised officer has not rendered any
independent finding regarding the nature and character
of the land as on the relevant date. There is also no
finding whether the exclusion of the property would
prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light
of the above findings, I hold that the impugned order was
passed in contravention of the statutory mandate and the
law laid down by this Court. Thus, the impugned order is
vitiated due to errors of law and non-application of mind,
and is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the authorised
officer is to be directed to reconsider the Form 5
application as per the procedure prescribed under the
law.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
i. Ext.P7 order is quashed.
2025:KER:57958
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P6 application in accordance
with law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a
personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call
for the satellite pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.
iii. If satellite pictures are called for, the application
shall be disposed of within three months from the date of
receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the
authorised officer opts to personally inspect the
property, the application shall be considered and
disposed of within two months from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/04.08.25
2025:KER:57958
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2016/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING
THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
DOCUMENT NO.7442/2004 DATED 24-12-2004 OF
SRO AYYANTHOLE
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
13-01-2025 ISSUED BY THE LAND REVUNE
DEPARTMENT
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
R.D.O. THRISSUR DATED 23.12.2004 ALONG
WITH TYPED COPY
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED
BY THRISSUR CORPORATION DATED 19.1.2005
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 DATED
28.1.2023
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.9.2024
ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
THRISSUR
